Damascus, SANA – The General Command of the Army and the Armed Forces announced that the US attacked an air base in Syria’s Central Region with a number of missiles.

“At 3:42 am today, the United States of America committed a blatant act of aggression targeting one of our air bases in the Central Region with a number of missiles, leaving 6 people martyred and a number of others injured and causing huge material damage,” the
Army’s Command said in a statement.

The statement condemned the U.S. attack, saying it stresses the continued wrong strategy of the US and undermines the operation of fighting terrorism carried out by the Syrian Arab Army.

The attack, the statement added, makes the United States of America a “partner” of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations that have sought since day one of the unfair war on Syria to attack points of the Syrian army and the Syrian military bases.

The Army’s Command said the US’s attempt to justify this aggression by saying that it is in response to the Syrian army’s use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun town in Idleb without yet determining the reality of and the perpetrators behind what happened there “sends wrong messages to the terrorist organizations that would embolden them further to use chemical weapons in the future every time they suffer heavy losses in the battlefield.”

This act of aggression, the Command stressed, violates all international laws and conventions and aims at affecting the capabilities of the Syrian army in its fight against terrorism.

1 day ago 56 5,171
"The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious".
40Share on FacebookTwitter
Acting Russian Ambassador to the UN Vladimir Safronkov, delivered a scathing indictment on the United States and its allies over the illegal missile strike on Syria.

He rightly accused the United States of violating international law in a totally unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. He was careful to illustrate the difference between the illegal US presence in Syria fighting Salifism with the Kurds vis-a-vis an outright attack on Syrian forces who are doing the lion’s share of the fighting against terrorism. In order words things have gone from uncomfortable to totally unacceptable and totally counter-productive.

He correctly stated that the American war crime of undermines the peace process for Syria as well as stability in the country and wider region.

Most crucially, he criticised the United States for its massacring of civilians in Mosul, something which the US has still not been held accountable for. Why should the US get away with literal murder in Iraq, but the Syrian government should be punished for something it objectively didn’t do and what’s more, before anyone even had a chance to investigate.

Safronkov remarked that the attack was in motion before some members of the Security Council even ‘left the building’ the previous evening.

The Russian envoy had particularly scathing remarks for British envoy to the UN, Matthew Rycroft. Rycrot delivered a downright preposterous speech which said that Russia had been humiliated by the attack. Just how, no one can say. There was simply no logic in the remarks.

Addressing his UK counterpart, Safronkov said,

“Washington, London and Paris are obsessed with the paranoid idea of overthrowing the legitimate government of Syria. This is evidenced by the evil, undiplomatic behaviour and the address by the British ambassador. Mr. Raycroft, stop operating with low-quality, unprofessional arguments and accusations against my country. Once again I warn you, do not even try to quarrel with the Arab world, nothing good will come of it”.
He went on to say that the Arab world’s former colonial masters had no real legitimate credibility when speaking about overthrowing legitimate governments in the Arab world.

Turning back to the US, Safronkov exposed the sheer hypocrisy of the US still debating a political solution for Syria when they’ve clearly embarked on a war.

“We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the United States. The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious”.
The speech was a solid tour de force that the late Vitaly Churkin would almost certainly have been proud of.

The session of the Security Council was called by Bolivia whose ambassador also offered scathing criticism of America’s illegal action. Sometimes though, a pictures is worth 1,000 words.

Donald Trump‘s decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie.

In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:

The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. [prior to the Chemical Weapons attack] There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib and that the Russians believed it was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
There are members of the U.S. military who were aware that this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

Here’s the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the [cruise missile] attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel sh**t. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I’m hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime.

Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam.

Current National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond “H. R.” McMaster is manipulating intelligence reports given to President Donald Trump, Cernovich Media can now report. McMaster is plotting how to sell a massive ground war in Syria to President Trump with the help of disgraced former CIA director and convicted criminal David Petraeus, who mishandled classified information by sharing documents with his mistress.
As NSA, McMaster’s job is to synthesize intellience reports from all other agencies. President Trump is being given an inaccurate picture of the situation in Syria, as McMaster is seeking to involve the U.S. in a full scale war in Syria.
The McMaster-Petraeus plan calls for 150,000 American ground troops in Syria.
Many special operations veterans including General Joseph Votel have raised serious concerns about McMaster’s plans for Syria.
Sources also suggest that McMaster is sharing classified information with Petraeus, whose security clearance was revoked.
Petraeus’ influence in the NSC remains strong.
McMaster was called Petraeus’ golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster’s name was included on the short-list. McMaster’s appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position.
Derek Harvey, the top Middle East adviser in the NSC, has close ties with Petraeus and is close with McMaster. (Harvey reportedly faces a massive EEO complaint from subordinates, although that investigation remains open.)
Harvey and McMaster have been trying to subvert Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Mattis and Dunford support working with our allies in the fight against ISIS. Harvey and McMaster are advocating for a massive American-only ground force.
Two men were standing in between another U.S.-led war in the Middle East — General Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon.
Flynn was removed after Susan Rice unmasked classified information concerning him. Bannon’s role within the White House was weakened by McMaster, who demanded Bannon be removed from his advisory position at NSC.
McMaster’s friends in the media, as part of a broader strategy to increase McMaster’s power, have claimed Jared Kushner and Bannon had a major falling out. In fact Kushner and Bannon are united in their opposition to McMaster’s plan.
If McMaster and Petraeus have their way, America will find itself in another massive war in the Middle East.
— -
Mike Cernovich is the journalist who broke the Susan Rice unmasking story._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Russia and Iran warn US they will 'respond with force' if red lines crossed in Syria again
Threat comes after UK Defence Secretary demands Vladimir Putin rein in President Bashar al-Assad

Jon Sharman 3 hours ago520 comments

8K

Click to follow
The Independent Online
russian-warship-2.jpg
File photo of a Russian Navy landing ship Getty Images
Russia and Iran have warned the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.

Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.

“What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” the group’s joint command centre said.

US President Donald Trump said the strike on al Shayrat airbase, near Homs, with some 60 Tomahawk missiles was “representing the world”. The base was allegedly used by Syrian forces to conduct the attack, which killed more than 70 people.

Britain, the US and France accused Mr Assad’s regime of gassing civilians in the opposition-held town, but Damascus claimed it destroyed its toxic stockpiles following an international agreement struck in 2013.

The Russian defence ministry put out a competing version of events claiming legitimate Syrian air strikes against “terrorists” had struck a warehouse used to produce and store shells containing toxic gas, which were allegedly being sent to Iraq.

The joint command centre also said on Sunday the missile strike would not deter it from “liberating” Syria, and that the US military presence in the north of the country amounted to an illegal “occupation”.

Mr Putin and Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani have called for an objective investigation into the chemical attack.

World news in pictures
36
show all
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Sunday that Moscow had failed to carry out the 2013 agreement to secure and destroy chemical weapons in Syria.

“The failure related to the recent strike and the recent terrible chemical weapons attack in large measure is a failure on Russia’s part to achieve its commitment to the international community,” he said on ABC’s This Week.

Mr Tillerson is expected in Moscow in the coming days for talks with Russian officials.

He stopped short of accusing Russia of being directly involved in the planning or execution of the attack.

By behaving erratically, US leaders can outmanoeuvre their rivals, but Kissinger's 'madman theory' tactics won't defeat IS or Assad in the end
“I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”

Those were Hillary Clinton’s words just hours before her nemesis, President Donald Trump, ordered air strikes launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat airfield in the southeast of Homs, Syria.

Escalation

The Trump administration described the strikes as a “one-off” and insisted there were no plans for escalation. But an escalation is rapidly underway. Russia, despite being given advanced warning of the bombing from the US, has suspended an agreement with the US to avoid mid-air collisions in Syrian airspace.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu visits Russia's air base in Hmeimim in the Syrian coastal province of Latakia in June 2016 (AFP)
The US government’s goals for the Syria strike can be deduced from the background role of one the most powerful diplomats in American history: Henry Kissinger. The former secretary of state, once accused by the late Christopher Hitchens of complicity in US “war crimes” in Latin America and south-east Asia, has been a key advisor to Trump in negotiating US relations with Russia and China.

Read more►

Assad's free ride for mass murder may over
Kissinger was previously a secret national security consultant to President George W Bush, and under Obama was directly involved in the US National Security Council’s chain-of-command. He also frequently advised Hillary Clinton during her term as secretary of state.

His influence in the Trump administration is also visible through his former acolyte, KT McFarland, who is now Trump’s deputy national security advisor, and who previously served under Kissinger in the 1970s in his National Security Council.

Chaos as strategy?

The sudden Syria air strikes fit into the philosophy of “unpredictability” - or Madman Theory - that Kissinger has long argued is a hallmark of the greatest statesmen. Kissinger’s approach is for US administrations to avoid the recommended caution of experts, instead opting for “the constant redefinition of goals” and “the strength to contemplate chaos”.

By behaving erratically, and even seemingly “irrationally”, US leaders can outmanoeuvre their opponents and rivals, and put them permanently on the backfoot in fear of the dangerous volatility of American power.

Tillerson and Trump, along with US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Secretary of Defense James Mattis during a meeting this week with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Washington, DC (AFP)
This is why Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was able to move from claiming that “steps are underway” to remove Bashar al-Assad from power, to now insisting that the US is not planning further actions.

“I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today,” he said.

The upshot appears to be: this was a one-off strike designed to send a clear message to US rivals, that the US is able and willing to deploy military power without fear of consequences. And that past commitments to Assad are no guarantee.

Cauldronisation

The deeper goal is to clear the ground for the Trump administration to pursue its strategic ambitions in Syria. Those ambitions can be gleaned from the thinking of its key advisors.

Before he resigned in disgrace over allegations of dishonesty regarding his contact with the Russian ambassador, Trump’s national security advisor Michael Flynn had just co-authored a book, The Field of Fight, with neoconservative defence consultant Michael Ledeen.

We're seeing an administration making decisions on the basis of competing ideologies, one of which naively sees the escalation of chaos in countries like Syria as a strategic opportunity
The significance of this is that Ledeen was directly involved with the Yellowcake forgeries attempting to fabricate a weapons of mass destruction threat to justify the 2003 Iraq War; has long campaigned for military interventions in Syria, Iran and beyond; and has articulated a foreign policy vision that was deeply influential in the George W Bush administration.

Ledeen’s vision for the region can be summed up with his endorsement of the "cauldronisation" of the Middle East in 2002, when he wrote in support of invading Iraq: “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronised, it is the Middle East today.”

This sort of vision correlates with the Trump administration’s preference for chaos, backtracking and constant shifting of priorities. To be sure, much of this can also be attributed to real confusion and overwhelming incompetence. No one should underestimate that.

But simultaneously, we’re seeing an administration making decisions on the basis of competing ideologies, one of which naively sees the escalation of chaos in countries like Syria as a strategic opportunity.

Assad is not being removed

It would seem, though, that the strategic purpose of the strikes is not, ultimately, to begin the removal of Assad. Syrian rebels - some of whom have fought alongside al-Qaeda, some of whom vehemently oppose both IS and al-Qaeda, and many of whom nevertheless want to replace Assad’s regime with their own type of Islamic state - have welcomed the strikes.

But they also rightly point out that simply hitting one airbase achieves little, given that Assad launches domestic air strikes from at least 26 airbases.

Israeli soldiers inspect a field where rockets fired from Syria landed near Kfar Szold in northern Israel, close to the Golan Heights and the border with Lebanon, in August 2015 (AFP)
A hint at what is really at stake comes from talks that have gone on between the Netanyahu and Trump administration during the last few weeks before the strikes. For Israel, the real "red line" in Syria is not about chemical weapons – it’s about Iran and Hezbollah’s potential encroachment, through Assad’s regime, on the Syrian-Israel border in the Golan Heights, or the Syrian-Jordanian border.

Sources familiar with the talks told Ha’aretz that Netanyahu wants “buffer zones” established on the Syrian side of the border. The plan also would entail that Syria’s Golan Heights be de facto partitioned off from Syria to Israel.

It so happens that the Israeli subsidiary of a US energy company, Genie Oil & Gas, is currently drilling for oil in the Golan Heights under a license from Netanyahu’s government. Among Genie’s equity-holding board members are Rupert Murdoch, who has astonishingly intimate ties with the Trump family, business empire, and administration.

Playing with fire

This vision does not see Assad’s removal as the answer, but seeks merely to limit his territorial power to a small enclave concentrated in Damascus, and further to break-off the scope of Russian and Iranian support for his regime. Simultaneously, the Trump regime wants to use the Syria strikes as the first step in a strategy to enforce a wedge between Russia and Iran.

The Kissinger-esque tactic of 'playing with fire' to get what you want doesn’t work. Instead, it tends to make things spiral out of control
By gifting to Russia the Crimea in one theatre, Trump’s government wants to convince Russia in a different theatre to back off its alliance with Iran in Syria, allowing the US a greater playing field to impose a diplomatic settlement that suits its own dubious geopolitical goals for the region.

The end result of this, though, is to maintain a state of permanent instability in Syria, where no particular faction wins: the US is at once tolerating Assad, threatening regime change, selectively targeting his regime but not taking actions that would actually remove him; allowing Gulf allies to continue supporting Syrian rebels of their choice, ranging from secular groups to Islamist militants, some with connections to IS and al-Qaeda; and carrying out air strikes on IS.

US actions to date will neither defeat IS, nor Assad. Instead, they will prolong the war, while attempting to contain it: an approach that is destined to defeat itself.

The problem is that the Kissinger-esque tactic of "playing with fire" to get what you want doesn’t work. Instead, it tends to make things spiral out of control.

- Nafeez Ahmed PhD is an investigative journalist, international security scholar and bestselling author who tracks what he calls the 'crisis of civilisation.' He is a winner of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian reporting on the intersection of global ecological, energy and economic crises with regional geopolitics and conflicts. He has also written for The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique and New Internationalist. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner's Inquest.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger delivers remarks by video link on the closing day of the World Economic Forum, in January 2017 in Davos (AFP)

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Was the Trump Missile Attack against Syria a Real Operation or a PSYOP to Change the Narrative?

By Scott Bennett

If we are to discover the absolute truth of what the Trump missile attack upon the Syrian air base was all about, we must examine all the facts, entertain every possible theory, test every explanation, analyze every piece of evidence, strive to make connections, and assemble the most complete and logical story that best explains the event.
So let’s start from the beginning, think outside the box, exercise our intuition and logic, and arm ourselves with the truth about the U.S. missile attack upon Syria this past week.

Hypothesis:
There are only two possibilities that explain the U.S. missile attack upon Syria:
1) Either President Trump received false and deceptive information from his national security team and advisors (National Security Council, White House, Pentagon, DIA, CIA, NSA, etc.) claiming that Syrian President Bashar Assad intentionally and ruthlessly released chemical weapons against civilians, and then was manipulated into launching a military counterattack against the Syrian government as a “humanitarian” action (that killed 9 civilians, including women and children) ; or
2) President Trump knew full well that there was no chemical attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, but yet chose to deviously use the false story to deceive and manipulate the American people—and the world—in order to advance his political strategy and achieve an objective.

Nature of the Offense:
The majority of independent thinking Americans with a healthy suspicion towards this event--and who are knowledgeable about “false-flag attacks” in general--have concluded that there is no evidence of a chemical attack launched by Syria, and that there is no motive for such an attack by the Syrian government.
Therefore, most of these Americans are offended by this U.S. missile strike against Syria mainly because if President Trump was given false information by his advisors, and he was deceived and then manipulated into launching the strike, then Trump has essentially disqualified himself from being President by demonstrating he is more of a puppet than a leader. Additionally Trump’s rush to judgement about this alleged event before a reasonable public analysis and discussion about the evidence and facts could occur, brands him as reckless, impulsive, and emotional, and a shallow minded fool incapable of independent and fact-based analysis, and whose ignorance could destroy America with another war.
Additionally, these same Americans had originally voted for Trump to be President specifically for his promise not to continue the Obama-Hillary Clinton policy of regime change and endless wars in the Middle East, and trusted that Trump himself believed in this—as he stated and tweeted numerous times—and that he would honor this commitment by establishing it as the core of American foreign policy and military operations. Finally Trump’s words of reassurance to Americans at his inauguration was that he would seek only “America first”, “stop forcing democracy down the throats of other nations”, “end regime change as a policy”, and “build closer ties with Russia and all nations interested in battling terrorism.” All of these statements seem to be disintegrating under the concussion of these missile strikes—which essentially was an unconstitutional declaration of war, and therefore an impeachable offense.
The American people are offended by recklessness, ignorance, arrogance, and deceitfulness in its politicians. They also see these characteristics as most accurately describing Trump’s missile strike upon Syria, and are therefore outraged, frustrated, and feel betrayed by him—and consequently more skeptical, fearful, and hostile towards the political, military, intelligence establishment that pushed for this strike.

The PSYOP Dimension
There is one semi-reasonable and daring hypothesis about this event and why it happened, and what the intended effect really was.
Essentially, there is a Machiavellian angle that suggests Donald Trump wanted to shift the American media and political narrative away from the chronic criticism of his policies and Russian conspiracy claims, win over the hearts and minds of many of the neoconservative and Washington establishment, and at the same time allow him to blast the war horn and redefine himself as a strong military President to the world. Some of this is supported by the fact that Trump informed the Russians about the impending missile strike more than an hour before it happened—allowing them to evacuate and prepare. Strangely, only 23 of the 59 missiles hit their target, possibly due to Russian countermeasures.
In order to achieve this however, Trump would have had to either persuade Russia’s Putin to endure the strike, and communicate this to Putin and Assad. Of course this can be dangerous given America’s leaking intelligence community which seem to enjoy tapping into secret Presidential phone calls and releasing information hostile to Trump to the press. However the Russian-Syrian reaction to the strike has appeared to be one of outrage and condemnation. Of course if Russia was in agreement with Trump’s strategy, then they would behave with an artificial anger.

Why would Russia agree?
Russia might conceivably agree with this kind of a Trump psyop because Putin realizes it could give Trump the necessary political capital and maneuvering room to develop better relationships with Russia in the future. By opening up a new issue, a new operation, a new problem, Trump could “respond” to overtures by Putin, and entrap the neoconservative warmonger establishment with their own words and bloodlust. Essentially Trump could create and manage a “theater” of operations where all kinds of fake blood, bodies, explosions, and turmoil could seem to be rising—causing the neoconservatives like John McCain and Lindsay Graham to convulse orgasmically and become intoxicated and careless—which Trump could then unexpectedly and swiftly end and appear to make slow advancing victories over Russia while at the same time instantly solving the ISIS problem through joint Russia-American operations. Checkmate.

Conclusion:
Sadly, it seems Trump may have to appear menacing, distrusting, and belligerent towards Russia, in order to distract the establishment away from seeing his deeper, personal feelings—which hopefully resonate with his original candidate statements of wanting a better relationship, an authentic friendship, and potentially an alliance with Russia, in order to combat the “Deep State” in American military-industrial complex.
The truth is, Russia, like Iran, is not an enemy of the people of the United States, Putin is not a dictator with ambitions of global empire and resurrection of world communism, and the Russian Orthodox Christian Church and the American Protestant Church have an affinity and natural harmony which does not exist anywhere else. The Russians have been forced to defend themselves from a rising authoritarian U.S. military-industrial complex, that has engaged in secret regime change operations using the CIA-Mossad-MI6 and targeted Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria. The Arab Spring was a psyop, the 911 attacks on New York and the Pentagon were a psyop, and now we see the last desperate effort by the Washington “Deep State” to continue this policy by demonizing Russia and redefining the Wahhabi-Takfiri mercenaries as “free democratic forces”, seeking to build freedom and capitalism in lands where the concepts themselves are viewed as spiritually corrupt and politically distrusted.
Let’s hope Trump is smart enough to realize that the same American voter who put him in office, will as quickly remove him if he betrays their core desire for ending the endless Middle East wars, preserving America’s wealth.._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian ‘chemical weapons attack.’ Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

— Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below)

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That’s pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don’t you think?

And it’s not up to Assad to prove his innocence either. That’s baloney. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let’s see it and be done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows to establish the truth. And that’s what we want, we want to know what really happened.

Neither Trump nor the media care about the truth, what they care about is regime change, which is the driving force behind Washington’s six year-long war on Syria. The fact that Washington has concealed its support by secretly arming-and-training Sunni militias, does not absolve it from responsibility. The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria. Without Washington’s support none of this would have happened. 7 million Syrians wouldn’t have fled their homes, 400,000 Syrians wouldn’t have been killed, and the country would not be the anarchic wastelands it is today. The United States is entirely is responsible for the death and destruction of Syria. These are Washington’s killing fields.

As we said earlier, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people nor has there been any investigation to substantiate the claims. The Trump administration launched its Tomahawk missile barrage before consulting with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which essentially preempted the organization from doing its job. The administration’s rejection of the normal investigative procedures and rush to judgement reinforces the belief that they know they have no case and are just peddling pro-war BS in the mad pursuit of their geopolitical objectives.

Since we don’t have an organization like the OPCW to conduct an investigation, we should at least consider the informed opinions of professionals who have some background in intelligence. This doesn’t provide us with iron-clad proof one way or another, but at least it gives us an idea of some probable scenarios. Here’s a quote from former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, who stated last week on the Scott Horton show:

“I am hearing from sources on the ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he should already have known — but maybe didn’t–and they’re afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict.” (The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia, Counterpunch)

We hear a very similar account from retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former chief of Staff to General Colin Powell. Here’s what he said in a recent interview on the Real News Network:

“I personally think the provocation was a Tonkin Gulf incident….. Most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that what most likely happened …was that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit…and this warehouse was alleged to have to ISIS supplies in it, and… some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals….. conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people.” (“Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics“, Real News Network)

Finally, we have the collective judgement of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below) the so-called Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Here’s what they say:

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

So, why is the administration so eager to jump to conclusions? Why do they want to use such a sketchy incident to justify an attack on sovereign nation that poses no threat to US national security? What’s really going on here?

To answer tha, we need to review an interview with President Trump’s new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, that took on place on Sunday on Fox News. McMaster– you may recall– recently replaced General Michael Flynn at the same position. Flynn’s failing was that he wanted to “normalize” relations with Russia which the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers rejected out-of-hand and worked to have him replaced with far-right wing militarist-neocon McMaster. Now, McMaster is part of the one-two combo that decides US foreign policy around the world. Trump has essentially dumped Syria in the laps of his two favorite generals, McMaster and James “Mad Dog” Mattis who have decided to deepen Washington’s military commitment in Syria and intensify the conflict even if it means a direct confrontation with Russia.

In the Fox interview, McMaster was asked a number of questions about Trump’s missile attack. Here’s part of what he said:

“The objective (of the strikes) was to send a very strong political message to Assad. And this is very significant because…. this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors….

He added,

“Russia should ask themselves, what are we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available….Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia as part of the problem.” (Fox News with Chris Wallace)

Can you see what’s going on? Trump’s missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that ‘the US military is coming for Assad, and you’d better stay out of the way if you know what’s good for you.’ That’s the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting Putin ‘on notice’.

Like McMaster said, “this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors….”

In other words, McMaster wants Putin to know that he’s prepared to attack the Syrian government and its assets directly and, that, if Putin continues to defend Assad, Russian forces will be targeted as well.

There was some confusion about this in the media because UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson got their talking-points mixed up and botched their interviews. But the Washington Post clarified the policy the next day by stating bluntly:

“Officials in the Trump administration on Sunday demanded that Russia stop supporting the Syrian government or face a further deterioration in its relations with the United States.”

Bingo. That’s the policy in a nutshell. The issue isn’t chemical weapons. The issue is Russia’s support for Assad, the leader who remains the target of US regime change plans. We are seeing a fundamental shift in the policy from mainly covert support for CIA-backed Sunni militias to overt military intervention. This is just the first volley in that new war.

The media wants the American people to believe that President Trump impulsively ordered the missile attacks in response to the use of chemical weapons. But there’s reason to suspect that the attacks had been planned for some time in advance. As one blogger pointed out:

“In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan. In other words, the administration met with the entire Middle East ‘Sunni alliance’ just days before ordering the missile strikes. Coincidence?

Probably not. They were probably tipped off and asked for their continued support.

Also, Trump waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How’s that for timing?

Do you think that the announcement that Trump just attacked Syria would have an impact on the two leaders’ conversation about North Korea? Do you think Xi might have seen the announcement as a not-so-subtle threat of violence against the North unless China forces its ally to make concessions?

Of course, he did. The man wasn’t born yesterday.

It seems unlikely that Trump’s attack was a snap decision made by an impulsive man. Instead, it looks like there was a significant amount of planning that went on beforehand, including the deploying of 400 additional Special Ops to Syria and 2,500 combat troops to nearby Kuwait. It appears as though Washington had been building up its troop-strength for some time before it settled on the right pretext for taking things to the next level. As journalist Bill Van Auken noted at the World Socialist Web Site:

“We have been here so many times before that it is hardly worth wasting the time required to refute the official story. It is now 14 years since the US launched its invasion of Iraq over similar lies about weapons of mass destruction, setting into motion a vast slaughter that has claimed the lives of over one million people and turned millions more into refugees……..

Once again, as in the air war against Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to justify the violation of another country’s sovereignty…” (“The Bombing of Syria, Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site)

I have no way of knowing whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, but I found Russian President Vladimir Putin’s analysis particularly interesting. Reporters asked Putin — “What is your view about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?”

Putin answered-:

“You all know that the Syrian government has repeatedly asked the international community to come and inspect the sites where the rebels used chemical weapons. But they always ignored those requests. The only time the international community has responded, was to this last incident. So, what do I think?

I think we can figure out what’s going on by just using a little common sense. The Syrian army was winning the war, in some places they had the rebels completely surrounded. For them to throw it all away and give their trump card to the people who have been calling for regime change is, frankly, a crock of *.”. (Russian President Vladimir Putin.)

Putin’s response to Trump’s missile attack has been subdued to say the least. He did issue a perfunctory presidential press statement on the incident, but the tone of the statement was neither incendiary or belligerent. If anything, it sounded like he found the whole matter irritating, like the man who sits down to a picnic lunch and finds he has to deal with pesky mosquito before he can eat. But, of course, this is the way that Putin handles most matters. He’s a master of understatement who is not easily given to emotional outbursts or displays of rage. He’s more apt to scratch himself, roll his eyes and give a shrug of the shoulders, than wave his fist and issue threats.

But from a strategic point of view, Putin’s measured response makes perfect sense, after all, the real battle isn’t going to be won or lost in Syria. It’s much bigger than that. Putin is challenging the present world order in which a disproportionate amount of political and economic power has accrued to one unipolar center of authority, a global hegemon that imposes its economic model wherever it goes and topples sovereign states with a wave of the hand. Putin’s task is to build resistance among the vassals, form new alliances, and strengthen the collective resolve for a different world where national sovereignty and borders are guaranteed under an impartial set of international laws that protect the weak as well as the strong.

That’s Putin’s real objective, to rebuild the system of global security based on a solid foundation of respect for the vital interests of each and every country. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That’s why Putin won’t abandon Assad. It’s because he can’t.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum